A divisionDivision No. 330 · Tuesday, 28 October 2025· Commons· Defence and Foreign Affairs

Opposition Day: China spying case

174Ayes
327Noes
Defeated · majority 153 · Government won
145 did not vote
Aye177No327DID NOT VOTE · 145

646 Members · Aye 174 · No 327 · DNV 145 · grey dots in centre are abstentions

Analysis
Commons

Parliament voted on 28 October 2025 on an opposition day motion brought by the Conservatives concerning a China espionage case and calling for greater government action or transparency in response to it. The motion was defeated by 327 votes to 174. Opposition day motions are procedural devices that allow opposition parties to force a debate and vote on a subject of their choosing, though they carry no binding legislative force. The motion called on the government to do more, or to be more open, about its handling of an alleged Chinese spying case affecting the United Kingdom. A defeat means the government faced no formal parliamentary pressure to change course, and its existing approach to the matter remains unchallenged by any binding parliamentary decision. The case touches on sensitive questions about foreign interference, intelligence handling, and how much ministers disclose to Parliament about security threats. The vote divided almost entirely along party lines. All 293 Labour MPs and all 32 Labour and Co-operative MPs who voted opposed the motion, while every Conservative (91), Liberal Democrat (63), SNP (6), Plaid Cymru (4), DUP (3), Reform UK (2), and Green (2) MP who voted supported it. Two independents voted on each side. There were no notable rebels on either the government or the opposition benches.

Voting Aye meant
Support the opposition motion demanding greater government transparency or action over an alleged China espionage case affecting the UK
Voting No meant
Reject the opposition motion, defending the government's handling of the China spying matter and opposing the terms of the motion
§ 01Who voted how.501 voting Members · 145 absent

Each row is one party. The stacked bar gives the within-party split of Aye / No / Absent; the columns on the right give the raw counts. The whip column shows the published party position — “Free vote” means the whip was formally removed for this division.

Party
Whip
Aye / No / Abs
Aye
No
Abs
Labour Party
Whipped No
0
293
68
Conservative and Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
91
0
25
Liberal Democrats
Whipped Aye
62
0
9
Labour and Co-operative Party
Whipped No
0
32
10
Independent
3
2
8
Scottish National Party
Whipped Aye
6
0
3
Reform UK
2
0
6
Sinn Féin
0
0
7
Democratic Unionist Party
Whipped Aye
3
0
2
Green Party of England and Wales
2
0
2
Plaid Cymru
Whipped Aye
4
0
0
Social Democratic and Labour Party
0
0
2
Your Party
0
0
2
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
1
0
0
Restore Britain
1
0
0
Speaker
0
0
1
Traditional Unionist Voice
1
0
0
Ulster Unionist Party
1
0
0

Source · Hansard · UK Parliament Votes API · whip status from announced positions; “free vote” indicates the whip was formally removed

§ 02From the debate.8 principal speakers
Alex BurghartOpposedBrentwood and Ongar
Government must release all minutes and correspondence related to the China spy case to ensure transparency, as it failed to provide clear, consistent evidence that China was an active security threat to support prosecution.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (2,421 words)
Nick Thomas-SymondsSupportiveTorfaen
The CPS made an independent decision to discontinue the case; Government properly relied on the position of China's threat status at the material time (2021-23); releasing sensitive documents would breach legal privilege and harm national security.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (2,616 words)
Max WilkinsonNeutralCheltenham
Both major parties share responsibility for an unclear position on China; a statutory public inquiry is needed; the word 'enemy' was removed from the original witness statement under the previous Government.Liberal Democrat · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,409 words)
Sir Geoffrey CoxOpposedTorridge and Tavistock
Government knew China was a threat and should have plainly said so to support prosecution; invoking legal privilege is hypocritical given Labour's past demands for classified documents.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (886 words)
Sir Iain Duncan SmithOpposedChingford and Woodford Green
There is no meaningful difference between stating China poses multiple significant threats and stating it is a threat; the DNSA should have complied with the CPS requirement transparently.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,746 words)
John SlingerSupportiveRugby
Conservatives are being opportunistic; the previous Government's nuanced policy on China was appropriate; there is no evidence of Government interference in the CPS decision.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (700 words)
Paul WaughSupportiveRochdale
Opposition rhetoric about deliberate Government interference is unsubstantiated and damages national security consensus; cross-party unity on China threats is essential while maintaining pragmatic engagement.Labour · Voted no · Read full speech (983 words)
Mark PritchardOpposedThe Wrekin
Intelligence agencies' public statements clearly identified China as an active, ongoing national security threat; appointing a political adviser as National Security Adviser may have weakened professional judgment.Conservative · Voted aye · Read full speech (1,204 words)
§ 03Related divisions.Same topic · recent
Sources
Division dataUK Parliament Votes API
DebateHansard · Commons
Stance analysisAI analysis · Claude 4.x
LicenceOpen Parliament Licence v3.0